References : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [1]
Sailer I, Philipp A, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Hammerle CH, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the performance of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20 Suppl 4:4–31.
Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23 Suppl 6:39–49.
Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:119–30.
Hsu YT, Fu JH, Al-Hezaimi K, Wang HL. Biomechanical implant treatment complications: a systematic review of clinical studies of implants with at least 1 year of functional loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:894–904.
Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:121–32.
Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:97–113.
Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:720–6.
Cranin AN, Dibling JB, Simons A, Klein M, Sirakian A. Report of the incidence of implant insert fracture and repair of Core-Vent dental implants. J Oral Implantol. 1990;16:184–8.
Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. Relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol. 2002;28:67–73.
Lee J, Kim YS, Kim CW, Han JS. Wave analysis of implant screw loosening using an air cylindrical cyclic loading device. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:402–8.
Bakaeen LG, Winkler S, Neff PA. The effect of implant diameter, restoration design, and occlusal table variations on screw loosening of posterior single-tooth implant restorations. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27:63–72.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- Background : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [1]
- Background : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [2]
- Methods : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- Results : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [1]
- Results : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [2]
- Discussion : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [1]
- Discussion : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [2]
- Discussion : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [3]
- Conclusions : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- References : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [1]
- References : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [2]
- References : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [3]
- References : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types [4]
- Acknowledgements : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- Author information : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- Additional information : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- Rights and permissions : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- About this article : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant body: an in vitro study comparing two ultrasonic devices and five implant types
- Figure 1. Implant embedded in epoxy resin with thermocouple at the outer surface. : Temperature rise during removal of fractured components out of the implant
- Figure 2. Results for all implants instrumented with two tested ultrasonic devices, either with or without cooling. (a) Temperature rise when instrumenting with the Satelec ultrasonic device without cooling. The horizontal dotted line denotes the assumed critical rise in temperature. Temperature rise at 30 s: bone level 3.3 mm > bone level 4.1 mm > Straumann regular neck 3.3 mm = Astra 3.5 mm = Straumann regular neck 4.8 mm. (b) Temperature rise when instrumenting with the Satelec ultrasonic device with cooling. The horizontal dotted line denotes the assumed critical rise in temperature. Temperature rise at 30 s: bone level 3.3 mm = Astra 3.5 implant > Straumann regular neck 3.3 mm = Straumann regular neck 4.8 mm. Temperature rise at the bone level 4.1 implant lies in between the bone level 3.3 mm and Astra 3.5 mm implant and both Straumann implants, but not significantly different from either of these implants. (c) EMS without cooling. Temperature rise at 30 s: bone level 3.3 mm = bon